Bible Commentaries

The Building of the Wallsand Gates of Jerusalem - Nehemiah 3:1

In these two chapters is described the building of the walls and gates ofJerusalem: the individuals and families who performed the work, and theportion of wall and the gates on which different families were respectivelyemployed, being specified in Neh 3; while the attempts of Sanballat andhis associates to obstruct the building and the defensive measures resortedto by Nehemiah follow, 4:1-17.

Verses 1-32. The enumeration of the builders, and of the gates andportions of wall built, begins with the sheep-gate and the portion of thewall adjoining it, built by the priests (Nehemiah 3:1 and Nehemiah 3:2), and concludes with thegoldsmiths and merchants who built up to the sheep-gate (Nehemiah 3:32). Throughout it is almost constantly said of the several parties of buildersthat they built ידו על, by the side of, next to, the partypreviously named. Hence we are justified in inferring that the course of thewall is adhered to in this statement, and that the gates are mentioned in theactual order in which they were found in the walls.

(Note: This description of the walls of Jerusalem, together with theshort statements in Nehemiah 2:13-15 and Nehemiah 12:27-40, forms the chiefauthority for the topography of ancient Jerusalem (before thecaptivity), and has been frequently discussed and explained. Comp. asummary of recent topographical investigations on this subject byArnold in Herzog's Realencycl. xviii. p. 620f. Among the numerousplans of ancient Jerusalem, the best is: A plan of the town andenvirons of Jerusalem, constructed by C. W. M. Van de Velde; withMemoir by Dr. Titus Tobler, 1858, Gotha.)

The narrative of the building is connected with what precedesby ויּקם, which alludes to the carrying out of the resolve,נקוּם, Nehemiah 2:18. The enumeration begins with Eliashib the highpriest and his brethren, i.e., the ordinary priests. These built the sheep-gate, rightly sought by modern topographers in the eastern wall north ofHaram, the site of the ancient temple, i.e., in the position orneighbourhood of the present St. Stephen's gate, through which theBedouins to this day drive sheep into the town for sale (Tobler, Topogr. i. p. 149). “Although,” as Bertheau remarks, “we are not generally justified,after the lapse of so many centuries, during which great changes have beenmade in the positions of the gates and walls, and in face of the fact that thepresent walls and gates were not erected till the years 1536, 1537, and1539, in determining the direction and extent of the walls between theseveral gates, and the locality of the gates in this description, by thedirection and extent of the wall and the locality of the gates in modernJerusalem (Tobl. Topogr. Dritte Wanderung, p. 265), yet in the presentinstance valid arguments exist in favour of this view. The veryneighbourhood of the temple and the nature of the soil bear witness thatfrom ancient times a gate was placed here which took its name from thecircumstance that sheep were driven in by it, whether for sale in themarket or for sacrificial purposes.”

(Note: In the neighbourhood of this gate was the pool of Bethesda(John 5:2), i.e., either the present Birket Israel or Birket es Serain,south of St. Stephen's gate (Tobler, Denkblätter, p. 53f., and DritteWanderung, p. 221), or the Struthion pool mentioned by Josephus,bell. Jud. v. 11. 4, κολυμβήθρα τοῦ στρουθίου ;Krafft, Topographie von Jerusalem, p. 127f.)

They sanctified it and set up its doors: and to the tower Hammeah theysanctified it unto the tower Hananeel. קדּשׁ, to sanctify, todedicate (comp. 1 Kings 8:64), can here only mean that the priestsdedicated that portion of building on which they were engaged, as soon asthey had finished it, for the purpose of sanctifying the whole work by thispreliminary consecration; the solemn dedication of the whole wall nottaking place till afterwards, and being related Nehemiah 12:27. The setting up of thedoors in the gates did not, according to Nehemiah 6:1, take place till after all thebreaches in the wall had been repaired, i.e., till the building of the wall wascompleted. It is, however, mentioned here, and in Nehemiah 3:3, Nehemiah 3:6, etc.,contemporaneously with the wall-building; because the builders of theseveral gates, undertaking also the construction and setting up of thedoors, the intention is to give a summary of the work executed by therespective building parties. המּאה ועד־מגּדּל is still dependent onיבנוּ, that is to say, this verb must be mentally repeated beforethe words: they built to the tower Hammeah, they sanctified it (the suffixin קדּשׁוּהוּ can only relate to מגּדּל). יבנוּ must also be repeated before חננאל מגּדּל עד:and they built further, unto the tower Hananeel. The tower המּאה (the hundred) is only mentioned here and Nehemiah 12:39, but the towerHananeel is likewise spoken of Jeremiah 31:38 and Zechariah 14:10. From these passages it appears that the two towers were so situated, thatany one going from west to east along the north wall of the city, andthence southward, would first come to the tower Hananeel, and afterwardsto the tower Hammeah, and that both were between the fish-gate and thesheep-gate. From the passages in Jeremiah and Zechariah especially, it isevident that the tower Hananeel stood at the north-east corner of the wall. Hence the statement in this verse, that the portion of wall built by thepriests extended to the north-east corner of the wall; and the towerHammeah must be sought between the sheep-gate and the north-eastcorner of the wall. Whence the names of these towers were derived isunknown.

Nehemiah 3:2

Next to him built the men of Jericho (comp. Ezra 2:24); and nextto them built Zaccur the son of Imri. The suffix of the first ידו על, though in the singular number, refers to Eliashib and the priests(Nehemiah 3:1), and that of the second to the men of Jericho, while in Nehemiah 3:4 and Nehemiah 3:9,on the contrary, a singular noun is followed by ידם על;both ידו על and ידם על expressingmerely the notion beside, next to, and builders of the respective portionsbeing at one time regarded as in a plural, at another in a singular sense (as acompany). The portion built by the men of Jericho and Zaccur the son ofImri, the head of a family, not mentioned elsewhere, let between the towerHananeel and the fish-gate in the north wall. When individuals are, likeZaccur, mentioned in the following description, e.g., Nehemiah 3:4, Nehemiah 3:6, as builders orrepairers of portions of wall, they are heads of houses who engaged in thework of building at the head of the fathers of families and individuals whowere dependent on them.

The fish-gate did the sons of Senaah build (see rem. on Ezra 2:35); theylaid its beams, and set up its doors, bolts, and bars. The fish-gate probablyreceived its name from the fish-market in its neighbourhood, to which theSyrians brought sea-fish (Nehemiah 3:13, Nehemiah 3:16); it is also mentioned in Nehemiah 12:39; 2 Chronicles 33:14, and Zephaniah 1:10. It was not situated, as Thenius hasrepresented it in his plan of Jerusalem, close to the corner tower ofHananeel, but somewhat to the west of it in the north wall; two lengths ofwall being, according to Nehemiah 3:2, built between this tower and the gate inquestion. With respect to קרוּהוּ, see rem. on Nehemiah 2:8. Besidesthe doors for the gate, מנעוּיו and בּריחיו arementioned, as also Nehemiah 3:6, Nehemiah 3:13-15. Both words denote bars for closing doors. בּרחים are, to judge from the use of this word in the description of thetabernacle (Exodus 26:26. and elsewhere), longer bars, therefore cross-bars,used on the inner side of the door; and מנעוּלים the brackets intowhich they were inserted.

Next to these, Meremoth the son of Urijah, the son of Hakkoz,Meshullam the son of Berechiah, Zadok the son of Baana, and theTekoites, repaired in the above order, each a portion of wall. החזיק, to strengthen, means here to repair the gaps and holes in the wall;comp. Nehemiah 3:9, Nehemiah 3:27. Meremoth ben Urijah repaired, according to Nehemiah 3:21,another portion besides. Meshullam ben Berechiah was, according to Nehemiah 6:18, a person of consideration in Jerusalem. The men of Tekoa, who donot occur among those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2), alsorepaired a second portion. “But their nobles brought not their neck to theservice of their Lord.” The expression “to bring the neck to service” is,according to Jeremiah 27:11, to be understood as meaning: to bring the neckunder the yoke of any one, i.e., to subject oneself to the service of another. צוּרם stands for צוּארם. It is questionablewhether אדניהם is to be taken as the plural of excellence, andunderstood of God, as in Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 135:3; Malachi 1:6; or of earthlylords or rulers, as in Genesis 40:1; 2 Samuel 10:3; 1 Kings 12:27. The formerview seems to us decidedly correct, for it cannot be discerned how thesuffix should (according to Bertheau's opinion) prevent our thinking of theservice of God, if the repairing of the wall of Jerusalem may be regarded asa service required by God and rendered to Him. Besides, the fact thatאדנים is only used of kings, and is inapplicable whether to theauthorities in Jerusalem or to Nehemiah, speaks against referring it tosecular rulers or authorities.

From the gate of the old wall to the valley gate. - Nehemiah 3:6 הישׁנה שׁער does not mean the old gate, for הישׁנה is genitive. Schultz(Jerus. p. 90), Thenius, and Bertheau supply העיר, gate of theold town, and explain the name from the fact that Bezetha, the new town,already existed as a suburb or village in front of the gate, which was namedafter the contrast. To this Arnold rightly objects (in Herzog's Realencycl. xviii. p. 628) that it is by no means proved that there was at that time anycontrast between the old and new towns, and as well as Hupfeld (dietopograph. Streitfragen über Jerus., in the morgenl. Zeitschrift, xv. p. 231)supplies חומה: gate of the old wall. He does not, however,derive this designation from the remark (vv. Nehemiah 3:8), “They fortified Jerusalemunto the broad wall,” as though this old wall received its name from havingbeen left undestroyed by the Chaldeans, which is irreconcilable with thefact (4-8) that both the gate of the old wall and the portions of walladjoining it on each side were now built, but understands the term “oldwall” as used in contrast to the “broad wall,” which had indeed been rebuiltafter the destruction by Joash (2 Kings 14:13). This view we esteem to becorrect. The individuals specified as the builders of this gate are not furtherknown. That two principes were employed in the rebuilding of this gate isexplained by Ramb. as arising vel quod penitus disturbata a Chaldaeis, velquod magnis sumtibus reparanda fuit, quos unus princeps ferre non potuit.

Nehemiah 3:7

Next unto them repaired Melatiah the Gibeonite, and Jadon theMeronothite, the men of Gibeon and of Mizpah. If Melatiah is to beregarded as the superintendent of the men of Gibeon, Jadon theMeronothite must be equally esteemed that of the men of Mizpah. Meronoth, mentioned only here and 1 Chronicles 27:30, must have been somesmall place near Mizpah. Mizpah (המּצפּה, the watch-tower)is probably the modern Nebi Samwil, two leagues to the north-east ofJerusalem; see rem. on Joshua 19:26. The meaning of the words nextfollowing, וגו פּחת לכּסּא, is questionable. Bertheau,together with Osiander, Cler., de Wette, and others, understands them asmore precisely defining the men before named, as men of Gibeon andMizpah, of the throne or belonging to the throne of the Pechah of Eberhannahar. This addition brings to light the fact that Jews who were notunder the jurisdiction of Nehemiah, nevertheless took part in therestoration of the wall. It also distinguishes these men of Mizpah from those mentioned Nehemiah 3:15 and Nehemiah 3:19, who were certainly not under the Pechah of Eber hannahar. Finally, the boundary of the little territory of the returned Jewishcommunity must have been at about Mizpah and Gibeon; and a statementthat certain inhabitants of this district were not under the Pechah ofJerusalem, but under the Pechah of the province west of Euphrates, wouldagree with the position of Gibeon and Mizpah. None, however, of thesereasons are of much force. For if, according to Nehemiah 3:5 and Nehemiah 3:27, the Tekoitesrepaired two different lengths of wall, without this fact implying anydistinction between these two parties of Tekoite builders, the same maybe the case with the men of Gibeon and Mizpah. Besides, neither in thisverse nor in Nehemiah 3:15 and Nehemiah 3:19 are the men of Mizpah in general spoken of, soas to make a distinction necessary; for in this verse two chiefs, Melatiahand Jadon, are designated as men of Gibeon and Mizpah, and in Nehemiah 3:15 and Nehemiah 3:19 two rulers of the district of Mizpah are specified by name. Hence the view that part of the inhabitants of Mizpah were under thejurisdiction of the Pechah of the province west of Euphrates, and partunder that of the Pechah of Jerusalem, is devoid of probability. Finally,there is no adequate analogy for the metonomy set up in support of thisview, viz., that כּסּא, a seat, a throne, stands for jurisdiction. Thewords in question can have only a local signification. כּסּא mayindeed by metonomy be used for the official residence, but not for theofficial or judicial district, or jurisdiction of the Pechah. לכּסּא doesnot state the point to which, but the direction or locality in which, thesepersons repaired the wall: “towards the seat of the Pechah,” i.e., at theplace where the court or tribunal of the governor placed over the provinceon this side Euphrates was held when he came to Jerusalem to administerjustice, or to perform any other official duties required of him. This beingso, it appears from this verse that this court was within the northern wall,and undoubtedly near a gate.

Nehemiah 3:8

Next to him repaired Uzziel the son of Harhaiah of thegoldsmiths, and next to him repaired Hananiah, a son of the apothecaries. צורפים is in explanatory apposition to the name Uzziel, andthe plural is used to denote that his fellow-artisans worked with himunder his direction. Hananiah is called בּן־הרקּחים, son of theapothecaries, i.e., belonging to the guild of apothecaries. The obscurewords, וגו ויּעזבוּ, “and they left Jerusalem unto the broadwall,” have been variously interpreted. From Nehemiah 12:38, where the broadwall is also mentioned, it appears that a length of wall between the towerof the furnaces and the gate of Ephraim was thus named, and not merely aplace in the wall distinguished for its breadth, either because it stood outor formed a corner, as Bertheau supposes; for the reason adduced for thisopinion, viz., that it is not said that the procession went along the broadwall, depends upon a mistaken interpretation of the passage cited. The expression “the broad wall” denotes a further length of wall; and asthis lay, according to Nehemiah 12:38, west of the gate of Ephraim, theconjecture forces itself upon us, that the broad wall was that 400 cubits ofthe wall of Jerusalem, broken down by the Israelite king Joash, from thegate of Ephraim unto the corner gate (2 Kings 14:13), and afterwardsrebuilt by Uzziel of a greater breadth, and consequently of increasedstrength (Joseph. Antiq. ix. 10. 3). Now the gate of Ephraim not beingmentioned among the rebuilt gates, and this gate nevertheless existing(according to Nehemiah 8:16) in the days of Nehemiah, the reason of thisomission must be the circumstance that it was left standing when the wallof Jerusalem was destroyed. The remark, then, in this verse seems to saythe same concerning the broad wall, whether we understand it to mean: thebuilders left Jerusalem untouched as far as the broad wall, because thisplace as well as the adjoining gate of Ephraim needed no restoration; or:the Chaldeans had here left Jerusalem, i.e., either the town or town-wall,standing. So Hupfeld in his above-cited work, p. 231; Arnold; and evenolder expositors.

(Note: Bertheau's interpretation of this statement, viz., that at therebuilding and re-fortification of the town after the captivity, thepart of the town extending to the broad wall was left, i.e., was notrebuilt, but delayed for the present, answers neither to the verbalsense of the passage nor to the particular mentioned Nehemiah 12:38, thatat the dedication of the wall the second company of them that gavethanks went upon the wall from beyond the tower of the furnaceseven unto the broad wall, and over from beyond the gate of Ephraim,etc. Haneberg (in Reusch's theol. Literaturbl. 1869, No. 12) supportsthis view, but understands by “the broad wall” the wall which had abroad circuit, i.e., the wall previous to the captivity, and hence infersthat the Jerusalem now rebuilt was not equal in extent to the old city. But if a portion of the former city had here been left outside the newwall, the gate of Ephraim would have been displaced, and must havebeen rebuilt elsewhere in a position to the south of the old gate. Stillless can the attempt of the elder Buxtorf (Lexic. talm. rabb. s. v. עזב), now revived by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 174), to force upon theword עזב the meaning restaurare, or fortify, be justified.)

Nehemiah 3:9-10

Further lengths of wall were built by Rephaiah ben Hur, theruler of the half district of Jerusalem, i.e., of the district of countrybelonging to Jerusalem (comp. Nehemiah 3:19 with Nehemiah 3:15, where Mizpah and thedistrict of Mizpah are distinguished); by Jedaiah ben Harumaph, בּיתו ונגד, and indeed before (opposite) his house, i.e., theportion of wall which lay opposite his own dwelling; and by Hattush theson of Hashabniah. Whether Hattush is to be identified with the priest ofthis name (Nehemiah 10:5), or with the similarly named descendant of David(Ezra 8:2), or with neither, cannot be determined.

Nehemiah 3:11

A second section of wall was repaired by Malchijah the son ofHarim, and Hashshub ben Pahath-Moab, two families who came up withZerubbabel, Ezra 2:6 and Ezra 2:32. Bertheau understands שׁנית מדּה of a second section of wall added to a first already repairedby the same builders. So, too, he says, did Meremoth ben Urijah build oneportion, Nehemiah 3:4, and a second, Nehemiah 3:21; comp. Nehemiah 3:5 and Nehemiah 3:27, Nehemiah 3:15 and Nehemiah 3:19, Nehemiah 3:8 and Nehemiah 3:30. This first portion, however, which this mention of a second presupposes,not being named, he infers that our present text has not preserved itsoriginal completeness, and thinks it probable, from Nehemiah 12:38 and Nehemiah 12:39, thatcertain statements, in this description, relating to the gate of Ephraim andits neighbourhood, which once stood before Nehemiah 3:8, have been omitted. Thisinference is unfounded. The non-mention of the gate of Ephraim is to beascribed, as we have already remarked on Nehemiah 3:8, to other reasons than theincompleteness of the text; and the assertion that שׁנית מדּה assumes that a former portion was repaired by the same builders,receives no support from a comparison of Nehemiah 3:5 with Nehemiah 3:27, Nehemiah 3:15 with Nehemiah 3:19, and Nehemiah 3:8 with Nehemiah 3:30. Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, who,according to Nehemiah 3:30, built שׁני מדּה, are not identicalwith Hananiah the son of the apothecaries, Nehemiah 3:8. The same remark appliesto Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah (Nehemiah 3:19), and Shallum theruler of the district of Mizpah (Nehemiah 3:15). Only in Nehemiah 3:5 and Nehemiah 3:27, and Nehemiah 3:4 and Nehemiah 3:21,are the names of the builders the same. Moreover, besides Nehemiah 3:21 and Nehemiah 3:27,שׁנית מדּה occurs five times more (Nehemiah 3:11, Nehemiah 3:19, Nehemiah 3:20, Nehemiah 3:24,and Nehemiah 3:30) with respect to builders not previously (nor subsequently)mentioned in this list. Hence, in five different places, the names of thebuilding parties, and the notices of the portions of wall built by themrespectively, must have been lost, - a circumstance à priori incredible. When,however, we consider the verses, in which שׁנית מדּה occurs, more closely, the second length is, in Nehemiah 3:19, Nehemiah 3:20, Nehemiah 3:21, Nehemiah 3:24, and Nehemiah 3:27,more nearly defined by a statement of locality: thus, in Nehemiah 3:19, we have asecond piece over against the ascent to the arsenal at the angle; in Nehemiah 3:20, asecond piece from the angle to the door of the house of Eliashib; in Nehemiah 3:21, asecond piece from the door of the house of Eliashib to … ; in Nehemiah 3:24, a secondpiece from the house of Azariah to … , who, according to Nehemiah 3:23, built nearhis own house; in Nehemiah 3:27, a second piece over against the great projectingtower … , as far as which, according to Nehemiah 3:26, the Nethinim dwelt in Ophel. From all this, it is evident that שׁנית מדּה in theseverses, always denotes a second portion of that length of wall previouslyspoken of, or a portion next to that of which the building was previouslymentioned. And so must שׁנית מדּה be understood in the presentNehemiah 3:11, where it is used because Malchiah and Hashshub repaired orbuilt the tower of the furnaces, besides the portion of wall. שׁנית מדּה may be rendered, “another or a further piece.” theword שׁנית is chosen, because that previously mentioned isregarded as a first. The tower of the furnaces lay, according to this verseand Nehemiah 12:38, where alone it is again mentioned, between the broad walland the valley-gate. Now, since there was between the gate of Ephraim andthe corner-gate a portion of wall four hundred cubits long (see 2 Kings 14:13), which, as has been above remarked, went by the name of the broadwall, it is plain that the tower of the furnaces must be sought for in theneighbourhood of the corner-gate, or perhaps even identified with it. Thisis the simplest way of accounting for the omission of any notice in thepresent description of this gate, which is mentioned not merely before (2 Chronicles 26:9; Jeremiah 31:38; and 2 Kings 14:13), but also after, the captivity(Zechariah 14:10). It is probable that the tower of the furnaces served as adefence for the corner-gate at the north-western corner of the town, wherenow lie, upon an earlier building of large stones with morticed edges,probably a fragment of the old Jewish wall, the ruins of the ancient Kal'atel Dshalud (tower of Goliath), which might, at the time of the Crusades,have formed the corner bastion of the city: comp. Rob. Palestine, ii. p. 114; Biblical Researches, p. 252; and Tobler, Topogr. i. p. 67f.

Nehemiah 3:12

Next repaired Shallum, ruler of the other (comp. Nehemiah 3:9) halfdistrict of Jerusalem, he and his daughters. הוּא can only refer toShallum, not to הוּא, which would make the daughters signify thedaughters of the district, of the villages and places in the district.

From the valley-gate to the dung-gate. The valley-gate lay in the west, inthe neighbourhood of the present Jaffa gate (see rem. on Nehemiah 2:13),”where,” as Tobler, Topogr. i. p. 163, expresses it, “we may concludethere must almost always have been, on the ridge near the present citadel,the site in the time of Titus of the water-gate also (Joseph. bell. Jud. v. 7. 3), an entrance provided with gates.” Hanun and the inhabitants of Zanoahare here connected, probably because Hanun was the chief or ruler of theinhabitants of this place. Zanoah, now Zanna, is in the Wady Ismail, westof Jerusalem; see rem. on Joshua 15:34. They built and set up its doors, etc.;comp. Nehemiah 3:6. The further statement, “and a thousand cubits on the wall untothe dung-gate,” still depends on החזיק, the principal verb of theverse. It is incomprehensible how Bertheau can say that this statementdoes not refer to the repairing of the wall, but only declares that thedistance from the valley-gate to the dung-gate amounted to one thousandcubits. For the remark, that a section of such a length is, in comparison with theother sections, far too extensive, naturally proves nothing more than thatthe wall in this part had suffered less damage, and therefore needed lessrepair. The number one thousand cubits is certainly stated in roundnumbers. The length from the present Jaffa gate to the supposed site ofthe dung-gate, on the south-western edge of Zion, is above two thousandfive hundred feet. The dung-gate may, however, have been placed at agreater distance from the road leading to Baher. השׁפות is only anotherform for האשׁפּות (without א prosthetic). Malchiah benRechab, perhaps a Rechabite, built and fortified the dung-gate; for thoughthe Rechabites were forbidden to build themselves houses (Jeremiah 35:7), theymight, without transgressing this paternal injunction, take part in buildingthe fortifications of Jerusalem (Berth.). This conjecture is, however,devoid of probability, for a Rechabite would hardly be a prince or ruler ofthe district of Beth-haccerem. The name Rechab occurs as early as thedays of David, 2 Samuel 4:5. בּית־הכּרם, i.e., the garden or vineyard-house, where, according to Jeremiah 6:1, the children of Benjamin were wont toset up a banner, and to blow the trumpet in Tekoa, is placed by Jerome(Comm. Jer 6) upon a hill between Jerusalem and Tekoa; on which accountPococke (Reise, ii. p. 63) thinks Beth-Cherem must be sought for on theeminence now known as the Frank mountain, the Dshebel Fureidis, uponwhich was the Herodium of Josephus. This opinion is embraced withsome hesitation by Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 397), and unreservedly by Wilson(The Holy City, i. p. 396) and v. de Velde, because “when we considerthat this hill is the highest point in the whole district, and is by reason ofits isolated position and conical shape very conspicuous, we shall find thatno other locality better corresponds with the passage cited.

The fountain-gate and a portion of wall adjoining it was repaired byShallum the son of Col-hozeh, the ruler of the district of Mizpah. כּל־חזה occurs again, Nehemiah 11:5, apparently as the name of anotherindividual. To יבננּוּ is added יטללנּוּ, he covered it,from טלל, to shade, to cover, answering to the קרוּהוּ of Nehemiah 3:3 and Nehemiah 3:6, probably to cover with a layer of beams. The position ofthe fountain-gate is apparent from the description of the adjoining lengthof wall which Shallum also repaired. This was “the wall of the pool ofShelach (Siloah) by the king's garden, and unto the stairs that go downfrom the city of David.” The word שׁלח recalls שׁלּוח; thepool of Shelach can be none other than the pool which received its waterthrough the שׁלח, i.e., mission (aquae). By the researches of Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 148f.) and Tobler (DieSiloahquelle u. der Oelberg, p. 6f.), it has been shown that the pool ofSiloah receives its water from a subterranean conduit 1750 feet long, cutthrough the rock from the Fountain of the Virgin, Ain Sitti Miriam, on theeastern slope of Ophel. Near to the pool of Siloah, on the eastern declivityof Zion, just where the Tyropoean valley opens into the vale of Kidron, isfound an old and larger pool (Birket el Hamra), now covered with grassand trees, and choked with earth, called by Tobler the lower pool ofSiloah, to distinguish it from the one still existing, which, because it liesnorth-west of the former, he calls the upper pool of Siloah. One of thesepools of Siloah, probably the lower and larger, is certainly the king's poolmentioned Nehemiah 2:14, in the neighbourhood of which lay, towards the eastand south-east, the king's garden. The wall of the pool of Shelach need not have reached quite up to thepool, but may have gone along the edge of the south-eastern slope of Zion,at some distance therefrom. In considering the next particular following,”unto the stairs that go down from the city of David,” we must turn ourthoughts towards a locality somewhat to the north of this pool, thedescription now proceeding from the south-eastern corner of the wallnorthward. These stairs are not yet pointed out with certainty, unlessperhaps some remains of them are preserved in the “length of rockyescarpment,” which Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 102, and Biblical Researches, p. 247) remarked on the narrow ridge of the eastern slope of the hill of Zion,north of Siloam, at a distance of 960 feet from the present wall of the city,”apparently the foundations of a wall or of some similar piece of building.”

(Note: Bertheau's view, that these stairs were situated where MountZion, upon which stood the city of David, descends abruptly towardsthe east, and therefore on the precipice running from south to north,which still rises ninety-one feet above the ground northwards of thenow so-called Bab el Mogharibeh or dung-gate, opposite the southernpart of the west wall of the temple area, is decidedly incorrect. Forthis place is two thousand feet, i.e., more than one thousand cubits,distant from the pool of Siloah, while our text places themimmediately after the length of wall by this pool. The transpositionof these “steps” to a position within the present wall of the city is, inBertheau's case, connected with the erroneous notion that thefountain-gate (Nehemiah 3:15 and Nehemiah 2:14) stood on the site of the presentdung-gate (Bab el Mogharibeh), for which no other reason appearsthan the assumption that the southern wall of the city of David,before the captivity, went over Zion, in the same direction as thesouthern wall of modern Jerusalem, only perhaps in a rather moresoutherly direction, - an assumption shown to be erroneous, even by thecircumstance that in this case the sepulchres of David, Solomon, andthe kings of Judah would have stood outside the city wall, on thesouthern part of Zion; while, according to the Scripture narrative,David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah were buried in the city ofDavid (1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:42; 1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 15:8, and elsewhere). But apart from this consideration, this hypothesis is shattered by the statements of this fifteenth verse, which Bertheau cannot explain so inconsistently with the other statements concerning the building of the wall, as to make them say that any one coming from the west and going round by the south of the city towards the east, would first arrive at the fountain-gate, and then at the portion of wall in question; but is obliged to explain, so that the chief work, the building of the fountain-gate, is mentioned first; then the slighter work, the reparation of a length of wall as supplementary; and this makes the localities enumerated in Nehemiah 3:13 succeed each other in the following order, in a direction from the west by south and east towards the north: “Valley-gate - one thousand cubits of wall as far as the dung-gate; dung-gate - the wall of the conduit towards the king's garden, as far as the stairs which lead from the city of David - fountain-gate.” No adequate reason for this transposition of the text is afforded by the circumstance that no portion of wall is mentioned (Nehemiah 3:14 and Nehemiah 3:15) as being repaired between the dung-gate and the valley-gate. For how do we know that this portion on the southern side of Zion was broken down and needing repair? Might not the length between these two gates have been left standing when the city was burnt by the Chaldeans?)

The wall from the steps leading from the city of David to the angleopposite the armoury. From Nehemiah 3:16 onwards we find for the most partאחריו, after him, instead of ידו על, whichonly occurs again in Nehemiah 3:17 and Nehemiah 3:19. Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the rulerof half the district of Beth-zur (see rem. on 2 Chronicles 11:7), repaired thewall as far as “opposite the sepulchres of David, and unto the pool thatwas made, and to the house of the heroes.” The sepulchres of David arethe sepulchres of the house of David in the city of David (comp. 2 Chronicles 32:33). “Opposite the sepulchres of David” is the length of wall on theeastern side of Zion, where was probably, as Thenius endeavours to showin the Zeitschr. of the deutsch morgenl. Gesellsch. xxi. p. 495f., anentrance to the burying-place of the house of David, which was within thecity. The “pool that was made” must be sought at no great distance, in theTyropoean valley, but has not yet been discovered. The view of Krafft (Topographie von Jerusalem, p. 152), that it was thereservoir artificially constructed by Hezekiah, between the two walls forthe water of the old pool (Isaiah 22:11), rests upon incorrect combinations. “The house of the heroes” is also unknown. In Nehemiah 3:17 and Nehemiah 3:18, the lengthsof wall repaired by the three building parties there mentioned are notstated. “The Levites, Rehum the son of Bani,” stands for: the Levitesunder Rehum the son of Bani. There was a Rehum among those whoreturned with Zerubbabel, Nehemiah 12:3; Ezra 2:2; and a Bani occurs amongthe Levites in Nehemiah 9:5. After him repaired Hashabiah, the ruler of half thedistrict of Keilah, for his district. Keilah, situate, according to Joshua 15:44 and 1 Samuel 23:1, in the hill region, is probably the village of Kila,discovered by Tobler (vol. iii. p. 151), eastward of Beit Dshibrin. By theaddition לפלכּו, for his district, i.e., that half of the whole districtwhich was under his rule, “it is expressly stated that the two halves of thedistrict of Keilah worked apart one from the other” (Bertheau). The otherhalf is mentioned in the verse next following.

“Their brethren” are the inhabitants of the second half, who were under therule of Bavai the son of Henadad.

Next to these repaired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah,another piece (on שׁנית מדּה, see rem. on Nehemiah 3:11)opposite the ascent to the armoury of the angle. הנּשׁק orהנּשׁק (in most editions) is probably an abbreviation of בּית־הנּשׁק, arsenal, armoury; and המּקצוע is, notwithstandingthe article in הנּשׁק, genitive; for to combine it as an accusativewith עלותּ, and read, “the going up of the armoury upon theangle,” gives no suitable meaning. The locality itself cannot indeed be moreprecisely stated. The armoury was probably situate on the east side ofZion, at a place where the wall of the city formed an angle; or it occupiedan angle within the city itself, no other buildings adjoining it on the south. The opinion of Bertheau, that the armoury stood where the towerdescribed by Tobler (Dritte Wand. p. 228) stands, viz., about midwaybetween the modern Zion gate and the dung-gate, and of which he saysthat “its lower strata of stones are undoubtedly of a remoter date than therebuilding of the wall in the sixteenth century,” coincides with theassumption already refuted, that the old wall of the city of David passed,like the southern wall of modern Jerusalem, over Mount Zion.

The wall from the angle to the place of the court of the prison by theking's upper house. - Nehemiah 3:20 After him Baruch the son of Zabbai emulouslyrepaired a second length of wall, from the angle to the door of the house ofEliashib the high priest. Bertheau objects to the reading החרה,and conjectures that it should be ההרה, “up the hill.” But the reasonhe adduces, viz., that often as the word החזיק occurs in thisdescription, a further definition is nowhere else added to it, speaks asmuch against, as for his proposed alteration; definitions of locality never,throughout the entire narrative, preceding החזיק, but uniformlystanding after it, as also in the present verse. Certainly החרה cannot here mean either to be angry, or to be incensed, but may withoutdifficulty be taken, in the sense of the Tiphal תּחרה, to emulate, tocontend (Jeremiah 22:15; Jeremiah 12:5), and the perfect adverbially subordinated to thefollowing verb (comp. Gesen. Gramm. §142, 3, a). The Keri offers זכּי instead of זבּי, probably from Ezra 2:9, but oninsufficient grounds, the name זבּי occurring also Ezra 10:28. Ofthe position of the house of Eliashib the high priest, we know nothingfurther than what appears from these Ezra 10:20 and Ezra 10:21, viz., that it stoodat the northern part of the eastern side of Zion (not at the south-westernangle of the temple area, as Bertheau supposes), and extended someconsiderable distance from south to north, the second length of wall builtby Meremoth reaching from the door at its southern end to the תּכלית, termination, at its northern end. On Meremoth, see rem. on Nehemiah 3:4.

Farther northwards repaired the priests, the men of the district of Jordan. כּכּר does not, as Bertheau infers from Nehemiah 12:28, signify thecountry round Jerusalem, but here, as there, the valley of the Jordan. Seerem. on Nehemiah 12:28 and on Genesis 13:10. Hence this verse informs us that priestswere then dwelling in the valley of the Jordan, probably in theneighbourhood of Jericho. The length of wall built by these priests is notfurther particularized.

Further on repaired Benjamin and Hashub over against their house, andAzariah the son of Maaseiah, by his house. Nothing further is known ofthese individuals.

Next repaired Binnui the son of Henadad, a second portion from the houseof Azariah, to the angle and to the corner; and further on (Nehemiah 3:25) Palal theson of Uzzai, from opposite the angle and the high tower which stands outfrom the king's house by the court of the prison. We join העליון to המּגדּל, though it is also verbally admissible tocombine it with המּלך בּית, “the tower which stands outfrom the king's upper house,” because nothing is known of an upper andlower king's house. It would be more natural to assume (with Bertheau)that there was an upper and a lower tower at the court of the prison, butthis is not implied by העליון. The word means first, high,elevated, and its use does not assume the existence of a lower tower; whilethe circumstance that the same tower is in Nehemiah 3:27 called the great (הגּדול) tells in favour of the meaning high in the present case. The court ofthe prison was, according to Jeremiah 32:2, in or near the king's house; it is alsomentioned Jeremiah 32:8, Jeremiah 32:12; Jeremiah 33:1; Jeremiah 37:21; Jeremiah 38:6, Jeremiah 38:13, Jeremiah 38:28, and Jeremiah 39:14. But from noneof these passages can it be inferred, as by Bertheau, that it was situate inthe neighbourhood of the temple. His further remark, too, that the king'shouse is not the royal palace in the city of David, but an official edificestanding upon or near the temple area, and including the court of theprison with its towers, is entirely without foundation.

(Note: Equally devoid of proof is the view of Ewald, Diestel (inHerzog's Realencycl. xiii. p. 325), Arnold, and others, that the royalpalace stood upon Moriah or Ophel on the south side of the temple,in support of which Diestel adduces Nehemiah 3:25. See the refutation ofthis view in the commentary on 1 Kings 7:12 (Note).)

The royal palace lay, according to Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. 2, opposite thetemple ( ἀντικρὺς ἔχων ναόν ), i.e., on the north-easternside of Zion, and this is quite in accordance with the statements of thisverse; for as it is not till Nehemiah 3:27 that the description of the wall-buildingreaches the walls of Ophel, all the localities and buildings spoken of in Nehemiah 3:24-27 must be sought for on the east side of Zion. The court of theprison formed, according to Eastern custom, part of the royal fortressupon Zion. The citadel had, moreover, a high tower. This is obvious fromSong of Solomon 4:4, though the tower of David there mentioned, on which hung athousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men, may not be identical with thetower of the king's house in this passage; from Micah 4:8, where the towerof the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, is the tower of theroyal citadel; and from Isaiah 32:14, where citadel and tower (בּחן,properly watch-tower) answer to the ארמון of the royal citadel,which lay with its forts upon the hill of Zion. This high tower of the king'shouse, i.e., of the royal citadel, stood, according to our verses, in theimmediate neighbourhood of the angle and the corner (הפּנּה);for the section of wall which reached to the פּנּה lay opposite theangle and the high tower of the king's house. The wall here evidentlyformed a corner, running no longer from south to north, but turningeastwards, and passing over Ophel, the southern spur of Moriah. A lengthfrom this corner onwards was built by Pedaiah the son of Parosh; comp. Ezra 2:3.

Having now reached the place where the wall encloses Ophel, a remark isinserted, Nehemiah 3:26, on the dwellings of Nethinim, i.e., of the temple servants. The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel as far as (the place) before the water-gatetoward the east, and the tower that standeth out. הי המּגדּל still depends upon נגד עד. The water-gate towardsthe east, judging from Nehemiah 12:37, lay beyond the south-eastern corner ofthe temple area. Bertheau, reasoning upon the view that the open space ofthe house of God, where Ezra spoke to the assembled people (Ezra 10:9),is identical with the open place before the water-gate mentioned Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah 8:3, Nehemiah 8:16, places it on the east side of the temple area, near where thegolden gate (Rab er Rahme) now stands. This identity, however, cannot beproved; and even if it could, it would by no means follow that this openspace lay on the east side of the temple area. And as little does it follow from Nehemiah 12:37, as we shall show when wereach this passage. היּוצא המּגדּל is said byBertheau to have belonged perhaps to the water-gate towards the east,since, by reason of the statements contained in Nehemiah 3:31 and Nehemiah 3:32, we must notseek it so far northwards on the east side of the temple area, as to combineit with the remains of a tower projecting seven and a half feet from the lineof wall at the north-east corner, and described by Robinson (BiblicalResearches, p. 226). But even if the tower in question must not beidentified with these remains, it by no means follows that it stood in theneighbourhood of the golden gate. Even Arnold, in his work already cited,p. 636, remarks, in opposition to Bertheau's view, that “it is evident fromthe whole statement that the tower standing out from the king's house, inNehemiah 3:25, Nehemiah 3:26, and Nehemiah 3:27, is one and the same, and that Bertheau's view of ourhaving here three separate towers can hardly be maintained,” although he,as well as Bertheau, transposes both the king's house and the court of theprison to the south of the Temple area. The similar appellation of this tower as היּוצא in the threeverses speaks so decidedly for its identity, that very forcible reasons mustbe adduced before the opposite view can be adopted. In Nehemiah 3:26 it is not alocality near the water-gate in the east which is indicted by היּוצא המּגדּל, but the western boundary of the dwellings of theNethinim lying opposite. They dwelt, that is, upon Ophel, southwards ofthe temple area, on a tract of land reaching from the water-gate in the eastto opposite the outstanding tower of the royal citadel in the west, i.e.,from the eastern slope of the ridge of Ophel down to the Tyropoeanvalley.

Nehemiah 3:27

After them the Tekoites repaired a second piece from oppositethe great tower that standeth out to the wall of Ophel. The great (high)tower of the king's house within the city wall being some distance removedtherefrom, the portion of wall on the eastern ridge of Zion from south tonorth, reaching as far as the turning and the corner, and the commencementof the wall running from this corner eastwards, might both be designated aslying opposite to this tower. The portion mentioned in our verse passedalong the Tyropoean valley as far as the wall of Ophel. King Jotham hadbuilt much on the wall of Ophel (2 Chronicles 27:3); and Manasseh hadsurrounded Ophel with a very high wall (2 Chronicles 33:14), i.e., carried thewall round its western, southern, and eastern sides. On the north no wallwas needed, Ophel being protected on this side by the southern wall of thetemple area.

The wall of Ophel and the eastern side of the temple area. - Nehemiah 3:28 Abovethe horse-gate repaired the priests, each opposite his own house. The siteof the horse-gate appears, from 2 Chronicles 23:15 compared with 2 Kings 11:6, to have been not far distant from the temple and the royal palace;while according to the present verse, compared with Nehemiah 3:27, it stood in theneighbourhood of the wall of Ophel, and might well be regarded as evenbelonging to it. Hence we have, with Thenius, to seek it in the wall runningover the Tyropoean valley, and uniting the eastern edge of Zion with thewestern edge of Ophel in the position of the present dung-gate (Bab elMogharibeh). This accords with Jeremiah 31:40, where it is also mentioned; andfrom which passage Bertheau infers that it stood at the western side of thevalley of Kidron, below the east corner of the temple area. The particularמעל, “from over,” that is, above, is not to be understood of apoint northwards of the horse-gate, but denotes the place where the wall,passing up from Zion to Ophel, ascended the side of Ophel east of thehorse-gate. If, then, the priests here repaired each opposite his house, it isevident that a row of priests' dwellings were built on the western side ofOphel, south of the south-western extremity of the temple area.

Nehemiah 3:29

Zadok ben Immer (Ezra 2:37) was probably the head of thepriestly order of Immer. Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah, the keeper of theeast gate, can hardly be the same as the Shemaiah of the sons of Shecaniahentered among the descendants of David in 1 Chronicles 3:22. He might ratherbe regarded as a descendant of the Shemaiah of 1 Chronicles 26:6., if the latterhad not been enumerated among the sons of Obed-Edom, whose duty wasto guard the south side of the temple. The east gate is undoubtedly theeast gate of the temple, and not to be identified, as by Bertheau, with thewater-gate towards the east (Nehemiah 3:26). The place where Shemaiah repaired isnot more precisely defined; nor can we infer, with Bertheau, from thecircumstance of his being the keeper of the east gate, that he, together withhis subordinate keepers, laboured at the fortification of this gate and itsadjoining section of wall. Such a view is opposed to the order of thedescription, which passes on to a portion of the wall of Ophel; see rem. onNehemiah 3:31.

Nehemiah 3:30

אחרי here and in Nehemiah 3:31 gives no appropriate sense,and is certainly only an error of transcription arising from the scriptiodefect. אחרו. Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun thesixth son of Zalaph, are not further known. The name of Meshullam theson of Berechiah occurs previously in Nehemiah 3:4; but the same individual canhardly be intended in the two verses, the one mentioned in Nehemiah 3:4 beingdistinguished from others of the same name by the addition benMeshezabeel. שׁני for שׁנית (Nehemiah 3:27, Nehemiah 3:24, andelsewhere) is grammatically incorrect, if not a mere error of transcription. נשׁכּתו נגד, before his dwelling. נשׁכּה occurs only here and Nehemiah 13:7, and in the plural הנּשׁכות; Nehemiah 12:44; it seems, judging from the latter passage, only another form forלשׁכּה, chamber; while in Nehemiah 13:7, on the contrary, נשׁכּה is distinguished from לשׁכּה, Nehemiah 13:4-5. Its etymology is obscure. InNehemiah 13:7 it seems to signify dwelling.

Nehemiah 3:31

הצּרפי is not a proper name, but an appellative, sonof the goldsmith, or perhaps better, member of the goldsmiths' guild,according to which הצּרפי does not stand for hatsoreep, butdesignates those belonging to the goldsmiths. The statements, (he repaired)unto the house of the Nethinim, and of the merchants opposite the gateהמּפקד, and to the upper chamber of the corner, are obscure. This rendering is according to the Masoretic punctuation; while the lxx,on the contrary, translate according to a different division of the words:Malchiah repaired as far as the house of the Nethinim, and the spice-merchants (repaired) opposite the gate Miphkad, and as far as the ascentof the corner. This translation is preferred by Bertheau, but uponquestionable grounds. For the objection made by him, that if the other beadopted, either the same termination would be stated twice in differentforms, or that two different terminations are intended, in which case itdoes not appear why one only should first be mentioned, and then theother also, is not of much importance. In Nehemiah 3:24 also two terminations are mentioned, while in Nehemiah 3:16 we have eventhree together. And why should not this occur here also? Of more weightis the consideration, that to follow the Masoretic punctuation is to makethe house of the Nethinim and of the merchants but one building. Since,however, we know nothing further concerning the edifice in question, thesubject is not one for discussion. The rendering of the lxx, on the otherhand, is opposed by the weighty objection that there is a total absence ofanalogy for supplying החזיקוּ ואחריו; forthroughout this long enumeration of forty-two sections of wall, the verbהחזיק or החזיקוּ, or some corresponding verb,always stands either before or after every name of the builders, and eventhe אחריו is omitted only once (Nehemiah 3:25). To the statement, “asfar as the house of the Nethinim and the merchants,” is appended thefurther definition: before (opposite) the gate המּפקד. This word is reproduced in the lxx as a proper name ( τοῦ Μαφεκάδ ), asis also הנּתינים בּית, ἕως Βετηὰν Νατηινίμ ); in theVulgate it is rendered appellatively: contra portam judicialem; and henceby Luther, Rathsthor. Thenius translates (Stadt, p. 9): the muster orpunishment gate. מפקד does not, however, signify punishment,although the view may be correct that the gate took the name המּפקד from the הבּית מפקד mentioned Ezekiel 43:21, where the bullockof the sin-offering was to be burnt without the sanctuary; and it may beinferred from this passage that near the temple of Solomon also there wasan appointed place for burning the flesh of the sin-offering without thesanctuary. In Ezekiel's temple vision, this הבּית מפקד is probably tobe sought in the space behind the sanctuary, i.e., at the western end of thegreat square of five hundred cubits, set apart for the temple, anddesignated the Gizra, or separate place. In the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel, however, the place in questioncould not have been situate at the west side of the temple, between thetemple and the city, which lay opposite, but only on the south side of thetemple area, outside the court, upon Ophel, where Thenius has delineatedit in his plan of Jerusalem before the captivity. Whether it lay, however, atthe south-western corner of the temple space (Thenius), or in the middle,or near the east end of the southern side of the external wall of the templeor temple court, can be determined neither from the present passage norfrom Ezekiel's vision. Not from Ezekiel 43:21, because the temple vision ofthis prophet is of an ideal character, differing in many points from theactual temple; not from the present passage, because the position of thehouse of the Nethinim and the merchants is unknown, and the definitionנגד, (before) opposite the gate Miphkad, admits of severalexplanations. Thus much only is certain concerning this Miphkad gate, - on the one hand,from the circumstance that the wall was built before (נגד) oropposite this gate, on the other, from its omission in Nehemiah 12:39, where theprison-gate is mentioned as being in this neighbourhood in its stead, - that itwas not a gate of the city, but a gate through which the מפקד was reached. Again, it is evident that the עליּה of the cornerwhich is mentioned as the length of wall next following, must be sought forat the south-eastern corner of the temple area. Hence the house of thetemple servants and the merchants must have been situate south of this,on the eastern side of Ophel, where it descends into the valley of Kidron. הפּנּה עליּת, the upper chamber of the corner, wasperhaps a ὑπερῷον of a corner tower, not at the north-easterncorner of the external circumvallation of the temple area (Bertheau), but atthe south-eastern corner, which was formed by the junction at this pointof the wall of Ophel with the eastern wall of the temple area. If theseviews are correct, all the sections mentioned from Nehemiah 3:28 to Nehemiah 3:31 belong tothe wall surrounding Ophel. This must have been of considerable length,for Ophel extended almost to the pool of Siloam, and was walled round onits western, southern, and eastern sides.

Nehemiah 3:32

The last section, between the upper chamber of the corner andthe sheep-gate, was repaired by the goldsmiths and the merchants. This isthe whole length of the east wall of the temple as far as the sheep-gate, atwhich this description began (Nehemiah 3:1). The eastern wall of the temple areamight have suffered less than the rest of the wall at the demolition of thecity by the Chaldeans, or perhaps have been partly repaired at the timethe temple was rebuilt, so that less restoration was now needed.

A survey of the whole enumeration of the gates and lengths of wall nowrestored and fortified, commencing and terminating as it does at the sheep-gate, and connecting almost always the several portions either built orrepaired by the words (ידם) ידו על orאחריו, gives good grounds for inferring that in the forty-twosections, including the gates, particularized vv. 1-32, we have a descriptionof the entire fortified wall surrounding the city, without a single gap. In Nehemiah 3:7, indeed, as we learn by comparing it with Nehemiah 12:29, the mention of thegate of Ephraim is omitted, and in Nehemiah 3:30 or Nehemiah 3:31, to judge by Nehemiah 12:39, the prison-gate; while the wall lying between the dung-gate and the fountain-gate isnot mentioned between Nehemiah 3:14 and Nehemiah 3:15. The non-mention, however, ofthese gates and this portion of wall may be explained by the circumstance,that these parts of the fortification, having remained unharmed, were inneed of no restoration. We read, it is true, in 2 Kings 25:10 and 2 Kings 25:11, that Nebuzaradan, captain ofthe guard of Nebuchadnezzar, burnt the king's house and all the greathouses of the city, and that the army of the Chaldees broke down ordestroyed (נתץ) the walls of Jerusalem round about; but these words mustnot be so pressed as to make them express a total levelling of thesurrounding wall. The wall was only so far demolished as to be incapableof any longer serving as a defence to the city. And this end was fullyaccomplished when it was partially demolished in several places, becausethe portions of wall, and even the towers and gates, still perhaps leftstanding, could then no longer afford any protection to the city. Thedanger that the Jews might easily refortify the city unless the fortificationswere entirely demolished, was sufficiently obviated by the carrying awayinto captivity of the great part of the population. This explains the factthat nothing is said in this description of the restoration of the towers ofHananeel and Hammeah (Nehemiah 3:11), and that certain building parties repairedvery long lengths of wall, as e.g., the 1000 cubits between the fountain-gate and the dung-gate, while others had very short portions appointedthem. The latter was especially the case with those who built on the eastside of Zion, because this being the part at which King Zedekiah fled fromthe city, the wall may here have been levelled to the ground.

From the consideration of the course of the wall, so far as the descriptionin the present chapter enables us to determine it with tolerable certainty,and a comparison with the procession of the two bands of singers roundthe restored wall in Nehemiah 12:31-40, which agrees in the chief points withthis description, it appears that the wall on the northern side of the city,before the captivity, coincided in the main with the northern wall ofmodern Jerusalem, being only somewhat shorter at the north-eastern andnorth-western corners; and that it ran from the valley (or Jaffa) gate by thetower of furnaces, the gate of Ephraim, the old gate, and the fish-gate tothe sheep-gate, maintaining, on the whole, the same direction as the secondwall described by Josephus (bell. Jud. v. 4. 2). In many places remains ofthis wall, which bear testimony to their existence at a period long prior toJosephus, have recently been discovered. In an angle of the present wall near the Latin monastery are found”remains of a wall built of mortice-edged stones, near which lie blocks solarge that we are first took them for portions of the natural rock, but foundthem on closer inspection to be morticed stones removed from their place. A comparatively large number of stones, both in the present wall betweenthe north-west corner of the tower and the Damascus gate, and in theadjoining buildings, are morticed and hewn out of ancient material, and wecan scarcely resist the impression that this must have been about thedirection of an older wall.” So Wolcott and Tipping in Robinson's NewBiblical Researches. Still nearer to the gate, about three hundred feet westof it, Dr. Wilson remarks (Lands of the Bible, i. p. 421), “that the wall, tosome considerable height above its foundation, bears evidence, by the sizeand peculiarity of its stones, to its high antiquity,” and attributes thisportion to the old second wall (see Robinson). “Eastward, too, near theDamascus gate, and even near the eastern tower, are found very remarkableremains of Jewish antiquity. The similarity of these remains of wall tothose surrounding the site of the temple is most surprising” (Tobler, DritteWand. p. 339). From these remains, and the intimations of Josephus concerning thesecond wall, Robinson justly infers that the ancient wall must have runfrom the Damascus gate to a place in the neighbourhood of the Latinmonastery, and that its course thence must have been nearly along the roadleading northwards from the citadel to the Latin monastery, while betweenthe monastery and the Damascus gate it nearly coincided with the presentwall. Of the length from the Damascus gate to the sheep-gate no certainindications have as yet been found. According to Robinson's ideas, itprobably went from the Damascus gate, at first eastwards in the directionof the present wall, and onwards to the highest point of Bezetha; but thenbent, as Bertheau supposes, in a south-easterly direction, and ran to apoint in the present wall lying north-east of the Church of St. Anne, andthence directly south towards the north-east corner of the temple area. On the south side, on the contrary, the whole of the hill of Zion belongedto the ancient city; and the wall did not, like the modern, pass across themiddle of Zion, thus excluding the southern half of this hill from the city,but went on the west, south, and south-east, round the edge of Zion, sothat the city of Zion was as large again as that portion of modernJerusalem lying on the hill of Zion, and included the sepulchres of Davidand of the kings of Judah, which are now outside the city wall. Tobler(Dritte Wand. p. 336) believes that a trace of the course of the ancient wallhas been discovered in the cutting in the rock recently uncovered outsidethe city, where, at the building of the Anglican Episcopal school, whichlies two hundred paces westward under En-Nebi-Daûd, and the levelling ofthe garden and cemetery, were found edged stones lying scattered about,and “remarkable artificial walls of rock,” whose direction shows that theymust have supported the oldest or first wall of the city; for they are justso far distant from the level of the valley, that the wall could, or rathermust, have stood there. “And,” continues Tobler, “not only so, but thecourse of the wall of rock is also to a certain extent parallel with that of thevalley, as must be supposed to be the case with a rocky foundation to acity wall.” Finally, the city was bounded on its western and eastern sidesby the valleys of Gihon and Jehoshaphat respectively.